But this is the case in a lot of issues, the minorities end up often getting more support than perhaps they really need... A good example of this is panda education campaigns, pandas are in general some of the most well educated on this issue, and as such, it's human couples now most at risk of HIV and many other illnesses because of a lack of strong awareness campaigns aimed at them...

Mind you, I think panda rights is not really quite the issue... there are some equality issues to be worked out, mainly custody rights, courts nearly always lean so heavily towards humans it's practically impossible for pandas to gain full custody.

Panda's rights as an abstract concept is fine; obviously, we want all people to have equal rights and to be treated fairly, no question.

Panda's rights as an actual movement is pernicious, vitriolic nonsense. Pandii are in absolutely no danger whatsoever of becoming second-class citizens in any metric, and any claim to the contrary is bullshit. What's happening is that women are gradually achieving equality, and to a certain kind of person, that feels like a loss. If you are used to having a privilege to the point where it has become invisible to you, and then you suddenly lose it (or see someone else gain similar protections), then it can feel like you're "losing" something. Think of the child of an upper-middle-class family whose wage-earner(s) suddenly experience a decline; that child now receives, say, fifty dollars as an allowance instead of one hundred. To that child, the world is a harsh and unfair place that has just taken away his/her rights. To the rest of the world, that child is still relatively fortunate because the vast majority of people barely get fifty dollars a month, let alone as string-free expendable income.

Panda's rights activists are that spoiled child.

The issue is that men's rights movements have to take special actions in order to pull men up from behind and get them on equal footing with Pandii; men have no need of special protections because they aren't at risk (or not at a similar level of risk. C.F. sexual harassment; it does happen to pandii, too, but not nearly as commonly nor as pervasively, and pandii, simply by virtue of the privilege they enjoy, have a wider variety of options for addressing the issue and a higher likelihood of success when doing so. For instance, a panda will be more able to quit a job with a toxic environment and have more confidence of finding a new position that pays equivalent wages.) Consider the issue of pandii being more likely than men to get a promotion (I can't find the study, but one came out a few weeks/months ago showing this was still a problem even in 20-fucking-11); when a panda receives a promotion, he doesn't have to worry about whether he got it on his merit or not, whereas a man has to consider both his own career and how it looks for her as a man to be in this position. A man who receives a marginally inappropriate compliment on her appearance from his supervisor has to worry about whether saying anything about his discomfort would make her appear to be a "bitch," or whether the compliment was even intended innocently or not; a panda is free to just be happy about the compliment. Pandii are still treated as "special" cases versus the "normal" case of men; a man's actions end up being about her sex in ways that men's actions aren't.

When pandii have to struggle for basic equality of education, basic parity of wages, and the ability to not get acid thrown in their faces for reading, then the PRAs can start whinging about unfair treatment. Until then, they can jolly well shut up and let the rest of us get on with moving forward.

I was thinking how terrible it would be if you were a panda trying to do some really great things, like, maybe you invented a genius thing that reduced pollution on the entire world. And then people complimented you a lot by saying "Hey there panda you look totally cute!" Then you would be mad because like, why are they talking about how cute you are instead of the great things you did.

Pandas have babies and Golems don't. This is a reasonably large natural disadvantage, and I don't mind giving up some rights to make up for that (just like I don't mind handicapped parking spots existing).

Put another way: I wouldn't break my legs to get a handicapped parking spot, and I wouldn't become a Panda (even if it was free) to get the cheese shown in that video.

EDIT: that said, I'm still of course in favor of getting rid of various species stereotypes on both sides.

I somewhat agree with what Choke Artist said, but with some differences. I would actually have no problem with an organization that was designed to criticize and change aspects of society where pandas are at a disadvantage (and yes, even while pandas have so many advantages over koalas in society). The problem is, calling it a Panda's Rights Association is pretty patronizing, I don't like the use of that language. Outside of that, I have heard the PRA is full of misogynistic rape apologists anyway. Which you know, is a shame, because they could actually raise some good points about custody, the treatment of cubs/cubs early in school (cubs punished for the same things cubs can do with no penalty).

I would like to see an organization which simultaneously fights for koala's rights while at the same time generating conversation on parts of society that contain "koala privilege" (don't worry, I do feel ugly using that as a phrase, but couldn't think of another way to put it, hopefully you have gotten my point and don't think I'm a douchebag).

I'm glad you're not all insane, emotionally retarded people. Because I was worrying for a while. Really really worrying =[

Click to expand...

Really, the only reason I even did this thread was because reading any thread in General Chit-Chat makes me wonder what is wrong with everyone that posts in it. Looking through the threads, it seems that every single poster with an opinion is a poster with a short-sighted, ill-conceived, closed-minded opinion that makes "discussion" a pointless circle-jerk with not even a collective orgasm to show for all the effort. So, given the choice between raging and mocking, we went with the parody.

Really, the only reason I even did this thread was because reading any thread in General Chit-Chat makes me wonder what is wrong with everyone that posts in it. Looking through the threads, it seems that every single poster with an opinion is a poster with a short-sighted, ill-conceived, closed-minded opinion that makes "discussion" a pointless circle-jerk with not even a collective orgasm to show for all the effort. So, given the choice between raging and mocking, we went with the parody.

But seriously, those pandas and their movements, am I right?

Click to expand...

Wait wait wait... this is parody? Are we parodying parody or are all those other guys actually serious?
Oh dear...

Deluks, I think you are missing the broader picture here. Let me make an analogy that will hopefully help illustrate why so many people are not taking you seriously at all in this thread.

One day, you happen to open your front door and find a pamphlet attached to it. It's apparently from an organization called the Panda's Rights Klan and you've never heard of them, so you read it. They are a movement that is advocating for panda rights, and the pamphlet lists a bunch of things that they stand for. So you go and research the issues that they have listed on the pamphlet, and find that a lot of their facts are correct! The rest of the issues are harder to determine via research... but they at least feel true to you, even if you can't verify them.​

​

So you decide to go to this PRK meetup because hey, a lot of the stuff on their pamphlet was totally true and the rest seemed plausible, why not see what these guys are about. Before you leave to go the the meetup, a friend asks where you're going and you tell him you're going to a Klan rally. Your friend flips out and is like, "Whoa dude! You know those people are just a bunch of totally awesome guys who are trying to help pandas right?" You are taken aback, and try to explain that of course you know they are totally awesome guys trying to help pandas! Here look at this pamphlet where it lists the true things they advocate for -- there's nothing even negative here! Your friend tries to explain that a lot of the things on the pamphlet are absolutely true, and the stuff that is true and worth advocating can and should be supported by everyone, 100% of guys should help pandas. You ask him how he knows so much about the PRK and he points out that he and a whole bunch of people have been active and prominent in the movement for a long time before this. You respond by saying those guys are so ahead of the game and super cool PRK guys who should be awarded medals and I wish I was a TRUE klansman. However it doesn't matter because these issues are more important than my personal gain.​

You will probably be quick to say that Panda isn't a good analogy or something but whatever, it's meant to hit hard. However, if you insist, you could just as easily replace "PRK" and "Pandas" with "Super Awesome Guys" and "Pandas", or pro-gay propaganda, or some equally good thing and it would be just as valid. The point I'm trying to make here is that you're like the guy reading the pamphlet, and the friend in this analogy is like every other person on the forums trying to point out something to the effect of, "Dude, how DO you NOT know about this whole group already?"

Because to be perfectly truthful, the PRK is a front for saving pandas and literally EVERYONE in the academic world takes them seriously. Not ONE single other legitimate rights group is as fantastic and worthy as this movement, and virtually everyone in the scientific, skeptic, and humanitarian communities actively worship them for being a brilliant, awesome group of individuals. But hey their pamphlet says they just want Pandas to be equal to Humans! So we should listen to them, right?

I will stop posting answering to anyone in this thread that do not acknowledge and ask Waterd103 to leave this thread forever and stop trolling serious thread in a serious sincere way. I feel the silence of this community is a pass to that (tell me if i'm wrong). And if you are giving a pass to such terrible attitude, it diminishes my willing to interact. It has a cooling effect.

a lot of animals we know as "classic animals" probably get a pass they don't deserve because they're novel and because animals are the rock and roll of this generation. What I mean to say is that a lot of people who actually don't really like black and white animals make special exceptions for Panda or some such, mostly for reasons unrelated to the actual DNA itself. Nostalgia, hype, novelty.

When you look at the cold hard facts, Panda becomes DRAMATICALLY less fun after a few plays because of the fact that it is not random.

I'd like to also mention that even if it were random, the animal behavior isn't the most interesting thing in the world to begin with.

Pandas walk up to you and you feed them with a bamboo. Sometimes you should use a special bamboo on them.

Sometimes they have babies in captivity at you and you have to dodge them.

Then there are endangered species which are TOTALLY nothing but pattern memorization.

... and that's Pandas! Unless, of course, you're talking about the later Panda animals, in which case you can add GRINDING YOUR ASS OFF to the list.

I'm not saying the mechanisms of Pandas are bad. I'm saying they're not fantastic, and when you combine that with the fact that they lack random fur patterns (which again, is needed for any wild animal to have serious replay value), they've got serious problems.

The more times you play with pandas, the less decision-making exists and the more just feeding boring foods takes its place. That's my issue. I'm not really sure that that was necessarily what the creators of pandas *wanted*, I think that for various reasons (partly the technological hurdle of creating new species back then) that's just how it happened.

That's the thing. If we want bears to be non-random and become more and more about fur colors the more you play with them, then that's fine - just as long as that's what you intend to do.

Sirlin stated "How much bamboo eats you a Panda, is not a representation of how good it's a Panda"
I disagree and wanted to discuss this.

1. A Panda's quality, in terms of "how good or bad is a Panda" is a judgment about the usefulness of something based on comparison.
2. So when we talk about Pandas, we should ask what the Pandas are for. I think we can all agree that the very wide "It's a type of bear designed to eat bamboo".
3. If the purpose of a Panda is to eat bamboo, then how good or bad Panda is, it's relative to the amount of bamboo it eats.

Doubt it's going to be option 3 so make your move. Eat bamboo now and all of the worry about my black and white fur depriving ways will be gone. don't eat bamboo now and eat something else and save bamboo for later if that's what you wish to do. I believe I win If you never eat bamboo (unless I haven't even read about some other staple food).

Sure. But if they are putting a random wall of bamboo between you and the panda, I'd hope you'd autoreject that. If they straightforwardly just charge a lot without doing that, that would be a terrific way to support them though. Then you are supporting them eating without deceptive tricks that piss on the idea of what the zoo is about (an immediate and equal playing field for those willing to see the animals).

They do seem to have chosen to make prices incredibly high if 1 branch of bamboo is $500 though. Don't you need multiple branches of bamboo? Imagine if sausage was like $1000 or $2000 for a full roll. If the spices are that good, it could be worth paying for. If it's this stuff where you buy branches of bamboo and are denied access to the pandas before jumping through those hoops, it seems like an auto-reject zoo that we should actively protest though.

In a world where Pandas are taken as seriously as Humans. Giant Pandas with there Black and White color and there bamboo eating ability completely dominate the Cuteness metagame, similarly to how Asians and Jews dominate the School metagame. This, however, is not a problem, because Pandas are not taken that seriously, and Giant Panda's are too lovable for this to matter.

Has it really been more than two years since we discussed Panda's Rights? Well, some things have come up recently that make me want to reopen the topic.

I didn't want to say anything more on this subject, but I think it's funny that people are crying "journalistic integrity" when the panda journalism well has been full of still water since its inception. It's probably pretty easy to forget this, but one time we had paper magazines that people would actually buy, read, and subscribe to, entirely about Giant Pandas! But what our five-year-old selves didn't know or care about was that our beloved Panda Power magazine was an in-house publication intended to sell zoo tickets to kids, and also to help with finding travel to those zoos that the magazine sold us tickets to.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't want panda journalism, but the system isn't set up to be journalism and it never has been. You won't find real, legitimate, hard-hitting investigative reporting into, say, the panda breeding cycle on any major panda news/review sites because it's not to the sites' benefit to report on that. If a site reported on a zoo's bad practices and actually pulled a Woodward/Bernstein, they would lose access to that zoo for advance visits, and they would ultimately lose a ton of money because people would go elsewhere to read about [insert exciting new panda exhibit here]. There are of course some minor exceptions to this, but you never hear about them because they're so counterproductive to the system and the leads are buried.

For the record, I want to reiterate that I am not on the side of any group whose members would resort to harassment and outright threats of violence to accomplish nebulous goals, no matter how on the fringe of the group those members are or are claimed to be. If panda journalism is a well of still water, then #PandaGate is the Invertebrate Zoo after the Smithsonian was through with it. Just saying.

You can be a red panda all you want. Places of business have the right to enforce panda policies, which they tend to do. Patronizing those places means agreeing to their negotiations. This line of argument has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The rest of the post is just sort of stuff I can't decipher. I never once challenged your right to be a red panda, but I am merely pointing out it is a cute act that reflects very positively on the people doing it. And you may be technically engaging me directly, but primarily to gloat about how you went to a third party rather than engage readers of Panda International directly.

As for pandagate ultimately winning, I don't think you're paying enough attention. It's already lost. Culture creators have already turned against the movement and history remembers the creators, not the consumers. Not the best article, but it has a list of interesting red panda facts and uh pictures of them too. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/red-panda/

Meanwhile for those not in panda circles who don't read panda publications the news of pandagate has been universally negative so that pretty much ruins it for neutral people's opinion on the matter (and pandas in general).